John Irving, in the author’s afterword of 'The World According to Garp', writes that he debated a lot on what the book was really about. As I read the book (very slowly, I must admit), I was also constantly and consciously trying to find out what the book’s purpose really was. Until the end of the book, it never really came to me. And that partly became my motivation to read on.
In the afterword, John mentions that he initially, and to his own shock, thought that the book was about the temptations of lust. He goes on to reject the idea later, and I agree completely. The book definitely talks about it, but that’s just one of many aspects dealt with.
He goes on to talk about polarization of sexes as a dominant theme. This theme is definitely prominent in the book, with numerous strong feminist characters and the interaction of the protagonist, Garp’s and other men’s characters with these and other women. But again, that theme somehow didn’t appeal to me as the single most outstanding theme of this book.Finally, John Irving is convinced that 'The World According to Garp' is about a father’s fears. That is perhaps a very accurate description of this book, and coming from the author himself, I am in no place to question that.
Let's just focus on a set of characters in this book. The Ellen Jamesians are a group of women who cut their tongues, to show their support towards Ellen James, a 11-year old rape victim whose tongue was cut so that she couldn't describe the rapist. Some Ellen Jamesians are rape victims themselves, whereas others just want to show their support. Some others cut their tongues to make their voices heard. But, Ellen James hates Ellen Jamesians. To her, they were a shallow political imitiation of a very private trauma. They were prolonging her anguish. And these women were trying to help? What a pity!
This instance in mind, and based on many more characters, what I took out of this book is a lesson that I hope to carry with me through life. And that simple lesson is that each individual is different. Time and various experiences constantly gave me reason to think that people have a lot in common, which is true. My human resources background compel me to group people into sets and pools. And so does my profession as a lecturer. These theories became so much a part of my life, that somewhere down the road, I convinced myself that people have more commonalities, than dissimilarities. This book reminded me otherwise.
Each person has a very different history that he/she comes from, takes very different paths from other individuals and will have different futures ahead of them. In these differences, individuals might cross paths; for example: attend the same school, like the same celebrities on Facebook, join the same terrorist organization or use the same train to move from one place to another. But that’s where the similarities end.
People have different reasons for being at a particular place, or believing in a particular principle. And each person deserves the right to have different reasons. It would be wrong and completely unfair to think that all or even a majority of a group are doing the same thing for the same reasons. Hence, going forward, I would endeavor to constantly remind myself to accept people in their differences and to learn about these differences when given an opportunity to do so. Because that’s the appeal that we have to ourselves. That’s why the purpose of this book according to me is different to the purpose of this book according to John Irving. That’s what makes us interesting to us.
Thank you, Raghav, for gifting me this book.
